Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Chanda

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus of non-SPA contributors that Chanda does not (yet) meet Wikipedia's inclusion standard of WP:Notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Chanda[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entrepreneur without WP:RS to prove notability, claim to notability is creating a company which does not have a corresponding article, WP:WTAF. Article previously deleted via WP:A7 and WP:G11. Author also created talk page assessment of high and C level article.☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zambia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is not cited sufficiently or written in an impartial way. Subject does not appear to be notable enough for inclusion. Support suggestion to delete. -- delilah_folk 20:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is obvious enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete This article should not be articles for deletion the article contains useful information about the person in it. ☾raysum2020☽ ☏(ring-ring)
Delete - this businessperson is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia; there is no coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote yourself or your brand. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted. This article should not be delete because the person is yet to be a public figure sources will be added as soon as possible from the author. I don't Support suggestion to delete this article. -- Bill_wander — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.72.123.200 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC) — 41.72.123.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If, as you say, "the person is yet to be a public figure," that is a reason why the article should be deleted. WP:GNG --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Article is with great importance to its nation and the community at large, everything will be polished up sooner. I'm not in Support of deletion. -- George_Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.72.123.200 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC) — 41.72.123.200 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as per nom. Note that WP:USUAL might apply - if the company does end up becoming notable, the subject might as well. But as of today? Not so much. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted Please don't delete the company will be ready by the 23 of this month 2016. therefore everything will be ready, there is a bit of delay of funding by now it should have been up and running. Jefman — 41.72.102.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Move to Draft: namespace Since the author seems to think they can improve the article, although it is clearly not yet ready for publication, it should be draft-ified rather than deleted to allow some time for them to come up with evidence of notability from reliable soruces. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note–This is not a new article, it was A7/G11'ed in June 2015 for the same reasons.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 04:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note : I have struck a duplicate !vote made by IP 41.72.123.200. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom clearly not notable at present.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should not be deleted can't hurt to say it just one more time ͡{° ͜ʖ ͡°}. Julie2016 (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)— Julie2016 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.